Veronica Alford, CSC Docket No. 2020-1105

BackgroundVeronica Alford appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she was ineligible for the promotional examination for Cottage Training Technician (PS5321K), Hunterdon Developmental Center based on an incomplete application.

The subject examination had an May 21, 2019 closing date. The experience requirements were one year of experience in the direct care of children and/or adults in an institutional setting or hospital. A total of 111 employees applied for the subject examination and 86 were found eligible. The test was scheduled for January 24, 2022.

On the appellant’s application, she did not enter any experience, nor did she attach a resume with her application in the Online Application System (OAS). Personnel records indicate that she was a Human Services Assistant from December 2016 to the May 21, 2019 closing date, and a Direct Care AFSCME from May 2016 to December 2016. Agency Services indicated that due to her incomplete application, her eligibility could not be determined.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that she started working for the appointing authority in a temporary position starting in May 2016 and she was permanently appointed as a Human Services Assistant in December 2016. Therefore, she requests that her ineligibility be reconsidered since she had the required experience as of the closing date. She attaches her resume, her certification as a Homemaker – HHA, a Baby Nurse/Child Care training certificate, and documentation indicating that she completed long term care facility nurse aide training.

In response to the appellant’s appeal, this agency sent her a November 14, 2019 letter stating that a review of the Online Application System (OAS) found that her application did not include any employment information or an attached resume. Accordingly, because she did not indicate any experience on her application nor did she attach a resume with her application, there was no basis on which to present her case to the Civil Service Commission (Commission)..

In her January 2022 reply, the appellant states that the initial notice of ineligibility from this agency was sent on September 25, 2019, and she appealed on October 11, 2019. She notes that her mother passed away on September 22, 2019 and the funeral was held on October 26, 2019. She believes that this agency indicated in response to her appeal that her appeal was untimely. However, while she asserts that she was not in a good frame of mind at that time due to her mother’s passing, her appeal was timely since it was sent within 20 days. The appellant submits documentation from the post office to demonstrate that her appeal was sent on October 11, 2019. Additionally, she presents that she sent her resume with her appeal, which indicated that she had the required experience by the closing date. Therefore, she believes that the determination that she was ineligible does not make sense and is unfair. The appellant presents that she is a single mother who needs to be appointed to the subject title as the cost of living is so high. Therefore, she requests to be admitted to the subject examination.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(b) states that unless a different time period is stated, an appeal must be filed within 20 days after either the appellant has notice or should reasonably have known of the decision, situation, or action being appealed.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. That is, any documentation indicating work in any setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See In the Matter of Joann Burch, et al. (MSB, decided August 21, 2003) and In the Matter of Rolanda Alphonso, et al. (MSB, decided January 26, 2005). N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisInitially, it is noted that contrary to the appellant’s belief, this agency’s letter to the appellant’s appeal did not indicate that her appeal was initially untimely. However, this agency’s letter was dated November 14, 2019. Regardless of the reason, the appellant’s request to re-open this matter in January 2022 is more than two years from when she knew that this matter was closed. Therefore, the appellant’s request to re-open this matter is untimely. See In the Matter of Joe Moody, Jr. (CSC, decided January 15, 2020).

Regarding the merits, a review of OAS indicates that the appellant’s application did not contain any employment information nor did she attach a resume. The OAS User Guide asks candidates to review the application to make sure the information is complete and accurate. It also states that, by clicking “yes” to make a payment and submit the application, the candidate is told that he or she is certifying that the application is complete and accurate. See In the Matter of Michael Gelesky (CSC, decided July 26, 2017). Further, the appellant’s resume, which was not submitted until October 2019 on appeal, which is well after the May 21, 2019 closing date, is considered an amendment to her application. Therefore, it cannot be considered under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f). Additionally, as there are 86 applicants who are eligible to take the subject test, it is anticipated that the list will be complete. Therefore, as the examination situation is competitive, there are no grounds to relax the rules. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.